Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 2, 2013 3:00am-3:31am PDT

3:00 am
sure this board has a lot on its plate that it could better more productively spend it's time. >> i believe if the director, if our office if the board of appeals office has been provided of sufficient notice of the withdrawal of the permit, we will have no need for hearing on the merits. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is miller and i'm a resident at west portal and speaking to the continuance i think it's unfair that i took time out of my workday and the woman who represents the other side chose to leave and then there is the possibility that all of us are going to have to come back and sit for another three 1/2 hours because she chose to leave. >> thank you. next speaker.
3:01 am
>> my name is shepherd and i i have lived in the west portal neighborhood for about 40 years. i was born in san francisco. i would object to your providing aid and assistance to somebody who has tried to subvert the process that you are so ableey trying to protect. she did not pick up her notice that she was supposed to post in the window of the prospective business until two days before the hearing. i don't believe that
3:02 am
she didn't know the rules or the process before she picked up the notice because she's been, i'm sure she's been represented by able council in her attempts to establish a business in san francisco. and i don't think that the rules in san francisco are so different than in other parts of the country. her organization does business in texas, oklahoma and mexico. she does business all over the place. she has several outlets in southern california. i think what you are doing by delaying the process rather than completing it tonight, you would be adding to the subject -- subversion
3:03 am
of the process that she's already done. >> thank you. any other public comment? please step forward and other people please step forward sowe can continue this, thank you. >> hi, my name is craig shiler, i lived in the west portal neighborhood since 1988. i know it's a nice neighborhood and becoming more of a magnet as it became more of a better developed commercial area. when i heard some facts about the two day posting, i was shocked at the notice that this was an issue. that's such a red flag to me. what's the purpose of the notice? so people can look at the business. you have a trial and you don't invite the prosecutor or defendant. it made no sense to me. it was a slam dunk that it was not going
3:04 am
to approve the permit. this is a place to comment to find out what other people know about the business in case that business is for someone that is very damaging to the neighborhood. that opportunity wasn't given. that could be a bad apple who never got looked at because they didn't post a notice that people needed to know what to say. the comments of course came late. more importantly, is the fact that what does it mean when somebody doesn't post a notice. you can presume that it wasn't intentional, but in all probability, you have to assume if the presumption in this case that they knew the rules and may have had a reason not to. in this case, because of the type of business this would be and who it would bring in the neighborhood, it's more important that this person is outstanding with a high degree
3:05 am
of integrity. i know this is not appropriate but i have seen articles about some of prior things said about the couple when they had other businesses in texas in fact that is a serious concern. >> thank you. so we are asking for public comment on the question of the continuance. not the merits. >> my name is stacy lawrence. i live on 15th avenue. i will spare my thoughts about why i think it's an unsuitable business. this case has not been properly noticed and therefore the neighborhood got up in arms and came to fight to say a permit shouldn't be granted when we haven't had our opportunity. given that, the fact she chose to leave under fire is really a moot point. i
3:06 am
would suggest that you rule on that this evening. >> thank you. any other public comment? okay. seeing none, then commissioners, you can decide. >> i have a question for captain lum? just to clarify the sequence of events leading up to this evening and what might happen prospectively. you made a determination that you wish to revoke the issuance of this permit, is that correct? >> yes. >> you informed the person when you saw her this evening? >> yes. >> just as an aside i would assume she left because she thought it was going to be a moot point. regardless our director indicated that upon receipt of a letter from the
3:07 am
issuing body which you say is typically dbi that would moot the case and it would be withdrawn, is that correct? >> that is correct and it based on the permit holder to cancel the permit. not on the department's position but their interest in withdrawing the permit. >> they are not going revoke unless the permit goes to them. >> you are not to revoke this ? >> would you see that letter is going to be sent. would you be based on this conversation that that letter would be forth coming. >> when she told me she was going to withdraw the application. >> she said i'm going to withdraw the application, please tell the board. >> she stated to you please
3:08 am
tell the board i'm withdrawing my application. >> what would the board need from her? >> a letter. >> you couldn't state that the appellant, could you on your own make an affidavit stating that and then on that basis? would that be sufficient rather than call her up to say can you send me a letter? >> i'm not sure because this would be handled by the permit bureau, not by the station. >> i might have a simpler solution, mr. kramer and the appellant can withdraw the appeal, that would give the police department freehand to revoke their decision. >> i have a simpler solution. i'm going to move that we revoke this permit on the basis of lack of notice and due
3:09 am
process and if the permit holder wants to request a rehearing, i will seriously consider it >> i would support that motion. >> okay. >> we would send out a 10 day no show notice. >> let's get this over with. [ applause ] >> quiet, you guys. commissioner has made a motion. >> okay. so the motion then is to revoke the permit commissioner fung with the finding of insufficient notice? >> no, with the fact that there was insufficient notice community notice on the initial permit issuance. >> insufficient notice at time of issuance? >> defective notice >> i think that's correct. >> with the finding of
3:10 am
defective annoys -- notices at the time of issuance. again to repeat we have a motion from commissioner fung to revoke this notice with defective notice at the time of issuance and the permit holder is not in the room. we would send out a no show letter to her. on that motion, president wang, lazarus, honda? aye. the vote is 4-0. this permit is revoked with that finding. >> we are going to move on. if everyone could leave the room quietly we would appreciate it. we are moving to item no. 10. >> jason perkins, bricks brik
3:11 am
and mortar versus the entertainment commission. this feeling approval of may 21, 2013 of additional conditions against the existing place of entertainment permit. you have seven minutes. >> i just want to say thank you to the board for your patience this evening. this is my first appearance. any other name is jason perkins. i started my first business in 1985. i know that i can expect as a business person on what i'm going to receive from the city of san francisco. i know what the permits are going to require, i
3:12 am
know what the rules are, i know what the regulations are, i know when a health inspector comes into my club i know what is expected. over the last year of brick and mortar we have had to deal with situations far outside any bounds that i have had in san francisco. we have been charged with a variety of offenses but nothing that showed any actual objective matter that indicated these problems. that began with when i pointed out to one of the officials the inspector inspecting our business that he also had a private insurance company that he was trying to get our business to use. when i pointed this out in january 2013, i was told not to bring it up again and instead i was
3:13 am
handed a series of violations and citations over sound. as we are working with our -- and the sound issues. i have in the first case, if this is a sound issue, why don't we have a valid sound test. the city responds that they didn't have time to do a sound test. that they didn't have the time to do a sound test which is why we have neighbors here who wants to talk about this. in the entertainment business there should be a sound test. none of these were followed by the city. in issuing a sound test and giving us a citation. in the citation we were also charged for not respngy of e si
3:14 am
we were is. we asked the commission 8 times for copies of these citations. i had to ask my attorney to request copies of these citations. they hand these citations that are blank and not filled out. in the other citation, you can't even read them. you can't read the time and what we are being cited for. in our feeling, these citations were bogus and made up after we asked for them. this is all part of a payback because we brought up a classic conflict of interest that should not have been handled in front of us. when we've tried to work with the city to try to meet with our neighbors and meet with the
3:15 am
discussions, we were always stone walled. in fact the neighborhood commission turned the neighbors against us. which is what i believe has occurred over the last few months. we have done more work in solving the problems of our neighbors over the last month by meeting outside of the hallways at the meetings of the entertainment commission than appeals ever did in the entertainment commissions office. i think as a business person who has to approach and work with the city everyday, all we ask is for something that is going to be a fair and reliable process. what brick and mortar is asking for is for the city to follow it's own rules. when i brought that up in my brief, the city doesn't even bother to respond to the rules of process that we
3:16 am
had in our own hearing. the city engaged and did not bother to notify us correctly. they did not notice our premises of a hearing. they did not give a reasonable notice of hearing. they didn't tell us what we could oh are not say at the hearing. i think at this point we had no place to turn and asked for the appeals board to step interested and look through our case and ask for assistance and getting ourselves a valid hearing in addressing what the neighbors had to say and to say it time for to us sit down and figure out the sound problem but do this in a manner that makes sense according to the laws. we are asking for the city to follow the same rules that they would expect us to. >> thank you.
3:17 am
>> we can hear from the entertainment commission oovment good evening board members, i'm candy blackstone, the director of the commission. executive director jocelyn is out of town. you have probably heard and now heard inflammatory accusations about the entertainment commission staff and i hoe that it does not distract from the issue at hand which is a basic issue. whatever is out there they are being handled at the appropriate venues. what you have now is a very simple issue. brick and mortar opened two years ago and almost immediately we started to hear
3:18 am
from the neighbors. these neighbors described by these proprietors. they like music, they just don't like hearing it in their bedrooms early in the morning. after the brick and mortar failed, the neighbors came to the entertainment commission. the entertainment is task with permitting and the responsibility is to mediate disputes between persons affected by cultural entertainment and similar events and establishments and the organizers and operators of such establishments. over that directive, the entertainment attempted to work with brick and mortar to solve problems. they work nightlife and
3:19 am
responsible establishment owners. after numerous citations over a year 1/2, many of the discussions that they were sound proofing, the reports of exorbitant noise from sleep deprived tenants continues. they did not revoke the club's permit, they did not suspend it. they limited the sound levels and the hours of live performances until that sound proofing was completed. that date has passed and the reports continued from neighbors. in fact i have this here. reports more e-mails about the noise from the last week if you want to see them. so they have been coming in and
3:20 am
we've been explaining that in filing this appeal brick and mortar's permit was transferred from our position and now in your hands and we can't do anything about limiting their sound any further. in further conditioning brick and mortar acted in a reasonable way and it's our hope that they can take steps to correct their sound problems and return to providing san francisco with an interestingly and culturally, live music. we did get information from them that they are in the process of soundproofing their venue. we are further encouraged that mr. perkins says he has been discussing this issue with the neighbors outside and made some
3:21 am
progress and that's good news. we won't know whether any of this is working until the sound is complete with a sound engineer. we are asking the board entertainment action permit uphold until it's been adequately sound proofed. thank you. >> we can take public comment. can i see how many here wish to speak? thank you. i'm going ask if you would please lineup on that side of the room. the first person can approach the microphone. >> how many people want to speak? 6. three minutes. >> please fill out a card. >> my name is -- i'm one of the neighbors that live behind the venue. i'm confirm that we have
3:22 am
made progress with the venue. i believe the owners we've been dealing with are genuine and interested in fixing the problem. we are not really concerned about any of the other issues that may or may not be interfering between the venue and the entertainment commission. i just want to confirm that these issues are real. these citations were not fake. we are just looking forward at this point. we don't necessarily want -- we are not interested in any restrictions that would interfere with their business, but we do want to maintain the ruling with the time tables and make sure there are appropriate test involved so we are not responsible for following up ourselves. there are various portions of the
3:23 am
ruling with respect to the sound limits and their hours. not affects me, personally, other neighbors will speak on their behalf. not particularly interested in those, we just want to make sure we have the timetable in place. >> thanks. >> i have some questions. how long have you lived behind the brick and mortar establishment? >> i have been there six years and brick and mortgage -- mortars have been there for two. >> has there been other problems single -- >> intermittent -- there was a jazz club there before. it's the type of music that causes more of a disturbance. >> was there a problem right away with the new
3:24 am
establishment? >> very early on. >> did you contact the owners of brick and mortar at that time? >> yes, initial interactions. >> what happened? >> they were somewhat confrontational. >> did you speak to the owners directly or security staff? >> both. originally, this progressed to interactions between the entertainment commission because those initial communications was not at all productive. >> you feel it's gotten better. >> yeah. i don't want to dwell on the past. i think it's better and we are interested in building that relationship and mr. perkins seems responsive at this point. >> how many times did you discuss with him? >> various people tried a
3:25 am
couple times each. me, once and that was plenty. >> okay. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is jim, i live atwood ward street which is behind brick and mortar. i just jotted down some thoughts as mr. perkins was speaking. i have lived in this neighborhood for 6 years. i have always had sound problems with this building. the business prior was a jazz club. they did not play loud or late at night. prior to that was a lounge and they did play loud music there. inspector has been in my apartment twice with
3:26 am
sound meter doing sound test. so why mr. perkins feels there was no sound checks done, i don't know. i have in my possession a copy of one of the sound checks that i believe was made public. it's typed, legible. it has clear issues that need to be fixed. i don't understand the issues of not being able to read it. i have never had any offer from anyone at brick and mortar to come to my residence to do any kind of sound testing. mr. perkins acknowledges with the previous trial in the commission that he received citations. i don't think they were verbally called out. my understanding is that
3:27 am
there were seven citations. in the previous recording he acknowledged he's received these citations. i don't understand why he said he's never seen them. we have only reached out to the entertainment commission. they are not hoisting themselves on brick and mortar. i personally called the police early on several times and didn't get a lot of traction there because they didn't handle permitting. we did some research on our own and figured out how to contact the entertainment commission. the next person is the one who made contact with the entertainment commission. the manager of brick and mortar has been shifting blame and has been posting flyers to try to
3:28 am
garner petitions and they shifted blame onto the entertainment commission themselves saying they are corrupt and they had various articles written, for example the sf weekly about it being corrupt and they posted nice comments on their facebook page about us as neighborhood and the entertainment commission. they have not been very positive. >> thank you. i noticed that you highlighted something in orange, a highlighter. is that something that you would like to read to us? >> the date on the venue inspection is -- it's not soundproof except for the windows. the street part is not soundproof. standing on the roof on the mission street side
3:29 am
of the venue you can hear the band play very clearly. >> have you tried to contact the owner? >> early on i sent letters to the owners of brick and and never got any response. >> i don't believe i ever got a sponsor if i did it was yeah, we are working on it. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is lex, as soon as they opened i experienced some noise issues and i did try to work things out and talk with
3:30 am
various people at brick and mortar. when i met mr. perkins, he wasn't super nice. in the last month he has been much more representative -- receptive since the hearing. there has been appropriate sound readings. there have been at least 5 in my house. they did take legitimate sound readings and each time they came over they were issued a citation after that. it's been an on going problem for two years and i hear everything in my living room and on the plus side, i do think that since the last hearing they are taking steps to try to rectify the situation and